Shabbat 138aשבת קל״ח א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Shabbat 138a'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
138aקל״ח א

אלא אמר אביי מדרבנן היא שלא יעשה כדרך שהוא עושה בחול

Rather, Abaye said: It is a rabbinic decree issued so that one will not conduct himself on Shabbat in the manner that he conducts himself during the week.

מנקיט אביי חומרי מתניתא ותני הגוד והמשמרת כילה וכסא גלין לא יעשה ואם עשה פטור אבל אסור אהלי קבע לא יעשה ואם עשה חייב חטאת אבל מטה וכסא טרסקל ואסלא מותר לנטותן לכתחילה:

Abaye would consolidate the principles of the baraitot pertaining to the construction of a tent on Shabbat and teach: With regard to a large wineskin, a wine strainer, a canopy hung over a bed, and a folding chair whose cover is detached from its legs, one may not assemble them due to the prohibition against making a temporary tent. If one did so unwittingly, he is exempt by Torah law from bringing a sin-offering, but it is prohibited by rabbinic decree. With regard to permanent tents, one may not make them, and if he did so, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for performing the prohibited labor of building. However, with regard to a bed, and a folding chair [teraskal] whose cover is attached to its legs, and a collapsible toilet, it is permissible to open them ab initio, since they are prepared for use from before Shabbat.

ואין נותנין לתלויה בשבת: איבעיא להו שימר מאי אמר רב כהנא שימר חייב חטאת

We also learned in the mishna: One may not place wine for filtering even into a suspended strainer on Shabbat. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one strained wine, what is the halakha? Rav Kahana said: If one strained wine, he is liable to bring a sin-offering.

מתקיף לה רב ששת מי איכא מידי דרבנן מחייבי חטאת ורבי אליעזר שרי לכתחילה

Rav Sheshet strongly objects to this: Is there something for which the Rabbis render one liable to bring a sin-offering and Rabbi Eliezer permits its performance ab initio? Extreme differences of opinion of that kind are rarely found in one mishna.

מתקיף לה רב יוסף אלמה לא הרי עיר של זהב דרבי מאיר מחייב חטאת ורבי אליעזר שרי לכתחילה

Rav Yosef strongly objects to this question: Why not? Isn’t there an analogous dispute with regard to a woman who wears a city of gold ornament from one domain to another on Shabbat, as Rabbi Meir renders her liable to bring a sin-offering, and Rabbi Eliezer permits it even ab initio?

מאי היא דתניא לא תצא אשה בעיר של זהב ואם יצאה חייבת חטאת דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים לא תצא ואם יצאה פטורה רבי אליעזר אומר יוצאה אשה בעיר של זהב לכתחילה

What is that dispute? As it was taught in a baraita: A woman may not go out into the public domain on Shabbat with a city of gold ornament. And if she did go out with it into the public domain, she is liable to bring a sin-offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: She may not go out with it ab initio, and if she went out, she is exempt. And Rabbi Eliezer says: A woman may go out with a city of gold ornament ab initio. Apparently, there is precedent for a dispute in which one opinion maintains that an action incurs liability to bring a sin-offering, while another opinion rules that it is permitted ab initio.

אמר ליה אביי מי סברת רבי אליעזר אדרבי מאיר קאי דאמר חייבת חטאת אדרבנן קאי דאמרי פטור אבל אסור ואמר להו איהו מותר לכתחילה

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Do you hold that Rabbi Eliezer is relating to the statement of Rabbi Meir, who said that she is liable to bring a sin-offering? He is relating to the statement of the Rabbis, who said one is exempt but it is prohibited, and he said to them that he holds that it is permitted ab initio. Had there not been the intermediate opinion of the Rabbis, an argument with such extreme opinions would not have been possible.

משום מאי מתרינן ביה רבה אמר משום בורר רבי זירא אמר משום מרקד

The Gemara asks: One is liable to bring a sin-offering for straining. Due to performance of what category of prohibited labor do we forewarn him? Rabba said: It is for the category of selecting, as one is selecting the wine from the sediment. Rabbi Zeira said: It is for the category of sifting, as straining is similar to sifting flour in a sifter, which is a form of selecting.

אמר רבה כוותי דידי מסתברא מה דרכו של בורר נוטל אוכל ומניח הפסולת אף הכא נמי נוטל את האוכל ומניח את הפסולת

Rabba said: According to my opinion, it is reasonable. What is the manner of one who selects? He takes the food and leaves the refuse; here too, when straining wine, one takes the food and leaves the refuse.

אמר רבי זירא כוותי דידי מסתברא מה דרכו של מרקד פסולת מלמעלה ואוכל מלמטה אף הכא נמי פסולת מלמעלה ואוכל מלמטה

Rabbi Zeira said: According to my opinion, that this is not typical selection but rather a specific type of selection, it is reasonable, as what is the manner of sifting? The refuse remains atop the sifter and the food is below. Here too, when straining wine, the refuse remains atop the strainer and the food is below.

תני רמי בר יחזקאל טלית כפולה לא יעשה ואם עשה פטור אבל אסור היה כרוך עליה חוט או משיחה מותר לנטותה לכתחילה

Rami bar Yeḥezkel taught: With regard to a doubled cloak, one may not make a covering on Shabbat by taking the cloak and placing it over a rope and extending the two sides in order to form something similar to a canopy beneath which one could lie (ge’onim; Rif). And if one made it, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering by Torah law, but it is prohibited by rabbinic decree. If there was a string or a cord wrapped around it before Shabbat, and the cloak was attached to the string while folded, it is permitted to spread it and stretch it ab initio.

בעא מיניה רב כהנא מרב כילה מהו אמר ליה אף מטה אסורה מטה מהו אמר ליה אף כילה מותרת כילה ומטה מהו אמר ליה כילה אסורה ומטה מותרת

On a related issue, Rav Kahana raised a dilemma before Rav: In the case of a canopy, what is the halakha? Is it permitted to spread it on Shabbat? He said to him: Even a bed is prohibited. Rav Kahana asked: With regard to a bed, what is the halakha? He said to him: Even a canopy is permitted. Rav Kahana again asked: In the case of a bed and a canopy, what is the halakha? He said to him: A canopy is prohibited, and a bed is permitted.

ולא קשיא הא דקאמר אף מטה אסורה כדקרמנאי הא דקאמר ליה אף כילה מותרת כדרמי בר יחזקאל כילה אסורה ומטה מותרת כדדידן

The Gemara comments: And this is not difficult, as the responses do not in fact contradict one another. Rather, when he said: Even a bed is prohibited, this is referring to folding beds like those of the Carmanians. Unfolding them is considered like making a tent. When he said: Even a canopy is permitted, this is referring to spreading the canopy in the manner explained by Rami bar Yeḥezkel. The canopy was bound by a string from before Shabbat. When he said: A canopy is prohibited, and a bed is permitted, this is referring to beds and canopies like ours, which do not fold. A bed of that kind involves no building. However, spreading canopies is performed in a manner similar to constructing a tent.

אמר רב יוסף חזינא להו לכילי דבי רב הונא דמאורתא נגידו ומצפרא חביטא רמיא

Rav Yosef said: I saw the canopies of the house of Rav Huna that were spread out in the evening, and in the morning they were cast off and lying on the ground. This indicates that it is permitted to dismantle and spread them on Shabbat.

אמר רב משום רבי חייא וילון מותר לנטותו ומותר לפורקו

Rav said in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya: With regard to a curtain, it is permitted to spread it, and it is permitted to dismantle it. Since a curtain has no roof, neither action constitutes establishing a tent.

ואמר שמואל משום רבי חייא

And Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya: